The Scottish Information Commissioner has determined that a request from a Gaudie journalist was wrongly labelled by the University as “vexatious”.
The University had refused to provide requested information, avoiding its obligations under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, which allows individuals to request information from public bodies, including the University of Aberdeen.
In an FOI request last March, then-Gaudie journalist Josh Pizzuto-Pomaco requested a record of conversations between senior University staff including Principal George Boyne, then-University Secretary Tracey Slaven and Senior Vice Principal Karl Leydecker, amongst other high profile individuals.
The request asked for conversations – from emails to Teams messages and WhatsApps – concerning the “issue of compulsory redundancies and voluntary severance within the modern languages department, and the decision to remove risk of redundancy notices from staff.”
Less than one year after the same journalist uncovered Principal Boyne’s damning text messages insisting he wanted striking staff to “feel pain along the way”, the University refused to provide the information, arguing it was exempt from replying to “vexatious” requests. Responding to the FOI, the University told our journalist:
“You have made 34 FOI requests […] 10 of which have been for correspondence held by members of the Senior Management Team (SMT). […] The requests have the effect of harassing the senior management team.”
Following an appeal, the Scottish Information Commissioner has now ruled the University of Aberdeen “failed to comply” with Section 1 of the FOI Act ruling that “making requests of this nature to the Authority seems to be entirely in keeping with the Applicant’s role.”
Commenting on the commissioner’s findings, Mr Pizzuto-Pomaco said:
“The ruling confirms an important truth: student journalism is vitally important. I hope this decision will further strengthen protections for student journalists who face undue opposition for doing their jobs, as I was.”
The University had faced backlash after announcing plans to axe degrees and languages staff, provoking the #SaveUOALanguages campaign which harshly criticised senior leaders at the institution.
Although requests are “applicant blind”, the University was “entitled to consider the intention behind the request given the volume and pattern of requests […] which focus solely on correspondence held by the same, or a similar category of Senior Management.”
In its decision, the Freedom of Information Commissioner said the FOI request “had a serious purpose” and that it was a “genuine attempt to obtain information”.
“The situation was, no doubt, extremely challenging for the [University], but that does not mean it was permitted any additional latitude in dealing with information requests – and, in particular, it does not permit any lowering of the threshold when it comes to identifying requests as vexatious.
“The Commissioner considers it reasonable to expect that those in senior positions should expect to be subject to enhanced scrutiny. This is particularly so [in a] challenging period.”
The University has until the 6th of March to review its response to the FOI request before further legal action.
Kirsten Koss, this paper’s News Editor, posted on X:
“Hopefully this will remind @aberdeenuni that responding to perfectly legitimate FOIs is their legal duty. If you don’t want journalists to uncover damning information, don’t create it in the first place. A win for student journalism.”
The University of Aberdeen declined to comment.
